Republican Congressman Says God Will 'Take Care Of' Climate Change

A Republican congressman told his constituents that he believes God will "take care of" climate change if it proves to be a "real problem."

Michigan Rep. Tim Walberg said during a town hall in Coldwater, Mich., on Friday that while he believes climate change is real, it is not something for humans to solve.

"I believe there's climate change. I believe there's been climate change since the beginning of time," Walberg said. "Do I think man has some impact? Yeah, of course. Can man change the entire universe? No."

He continued: "Why do I believe that? Well, as a Christian, I believe that there is a creator in God who is much bigger than us. And I'm confident that, if there's a real problem, he can take care of it."

As constituents grumbled, Walberg said: "I don't expect you to agree with me on that."

Under the deal, President Obama committed the U.S. to a 26-28% reduction in annual greenhouse gas emissions by 2025.

Click to expand...

Okay... my wife and I are both Christians... United Methodist (and a rather contemporary side of it at that) specifically. At no point does the Bible state that "God will make sure nothing bad happens" or that we have "no control over our own actions and consequences".

Beyond that... why the fuck is it acceptable in any way for one to base policy decisions on personal faith? Separation of Church and State is eroding more and more because of these assholes...

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

Okay... my wife and I are both Christians... United Methodist (and a rather contemporary side of it at that) specifically. At no point does the Bible state that "God will make sure nothing bad happens" or that we have "no control over our own actions and consequences".

Beyond that... why the fuck is it acceptable in any way for one to base policy decisions on personal faith? Separation of Church and State is eroding more and more because of these assholes...

Click to expand...

Public policy founded on the expectation of miracles is never good policy. But I'll give Republicans points for consistency. Policies built upon the expectation of miracles is what they do.

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

If Trump is not prevented from (so far as he is able) accelerating man made global warming might this lead to the start of the breaking up of the States as those States which refuse to go down his road will start to become economically divergent?

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

This is in the same league of stupidity as the catholic bishop in Italy, who said the recent earthquakes there were because god was pissed off about homosexuals. I had the impression that the Western world had left the Dark Ages, but obviously not entirely, or not much.

This is in the same league of stupidity as the catholic bishop in Italy, who said the recent earthquakes there were because god was pissed off about homosexuals. I had the impression that the Western world had left the Dark Ages, but obviously not entirely, or not much.

Click to expand...

There has always been gaps in our education system that some managed to fall through... the problem is that there appears to be a correlation between failure of education + early indoctrination into religion and ones tendency to vote for the most absurd and right wing candidate possible

If Trump is not prevented from (so far as he is able) accelerating man made global warming might this lead to the start of the breaking up of the States as those States which refuse to go down his road will start to become economically divergent?

I obviously have the seaboard States in mind.

Click to expand...

No, it ain't happening. The states are not breaking up over environmental issues - at least not yet. States are free to make stricter environmental regulations and some do. Economic divergence already exists within the country. Blue states, the Democratic states, are the most prosperous. The Red states, the Republican states, are the poorer states.

If Trump is not prevented from (so far as he is able) accelerating man made global warming might this lead to the start of the breaking up of the States as those States which refuse to go down his road will start to become economically divergent?

Click to expand...

Nope. Why would a state leave the Union over climate change? If Florida leaves, it's not going to keep the rest of the US from polluting.

One think tanks summation (sardonic satire):
So far God has failed to make his case clearly enough!
When the time comes and clarity is delivered by the likely sudden culling of about 75% of the worlds population only then will humanity decide it is necessary to walk the talk and take action to save the remaining 25%.
Will we succeed...only God knows.

Nope. Why would a state leave the Union over climate change? If Florida leaves, it's not going to keep the rest of the US from polluting.

Click to expand...

Well, I suggested the economic divergence might put pressure on States to become less dependent on the central government. (Joe did address that point)

I get the feeling there may already be secessionist tendencies based on old civil war divisions that may still lie beneath the surface and this Global Warming divide may introduce another fault line.

The main fault line seems to be the Republican /Democrat one which seems stronger than I can remember .

On the narrow Climate change issue I can see that no State is under pressure to tow Washington's line but I wonder whether different responses from individual States and regions could feed into countrywide divisions.

I am far from knowledgeable on US politics and could be completely wrong but something in the States needs to change in my opinion and Trump may be more (egregious) symptom than cause.

Personally my opinion is that big money and politics is an unhealthy (obscenely so) mix.

Okay... my wife and I are both Christians... United Methodist (and a rather contemporary side of it at that) specifically. At no point does the Bible state that "God will make sure nothing bad happens" or that we have "no control over our own actions and consequences".

Beyond that... why the fuck is it acceptable in any way for one to base policy decisions on personal faith? Separation of Church and State is eroding more and more because of these assholes...

Click to expand...

For years I've been hearing people say that we don't need to worry about the environment because Jesus is going to come back and make everything OK again. In fact, it has to go down the tubes in order for Revelations to come true.

For years I've been hearing people say that we don't need to worry about the environment because Jesus is going to come back and make everything OK again. In fact, it has to go down the tubes in order for Revelations to come true.

Click to expand...

I never heard that before. It would be sad (sickening) if it was at all widely believed.

For years I've been hearing people say that we don't need to worry about the environment because Jesus is going to come back and make everything OK again. In fact, it has to go down the tubes in order for Revelations to come true.

Click to expand...

Could he be waiting for us to get our shit together to be worthy of his kingdom?

Okay... my wife and I are both Christians... United Methodist (and a rather contemporary side of it at that) specifically. At no point does the Bible state that "God will make sure nothing bad happens" or that we have "no control over our own actions and consequences".

Beyond that... why the fuck is it acceptable in any way for one to base policy decisions on personal faith? Separation of Church and State is eroding more and more because of these assholes...

Also, note that Walberg uses 'climate change' then synonymously uses 'global warming'. This is a common error - global warming is ONE aspect of climate change . . . . so also is global cooling (remember the impending 'coming ice age' in the 1970's?).

Few people disagree on what the term 'climate change' actually means. Equating the term with only global warming (or only cooling) is a fallacy. Walberg is correct - 'climate change has been happening since the beginning of time' (well, at least since the beginning of climate activity on earth). Sometimes the climate warms . . . . and sometimes the climate cools.

BTW: Average CO2 is currently only about 400 ppm in the atmosphere . . . . . not really so high (though global warming fanatics might disagree). CO2 has been higher in the geologic past as well as lower. Some important things to consider: 1) plants LOVE CO2 - increases their growth (and production of O2) 2) all living animals (including us!) EXHALE CO2 (NOW don't you really feel guilty for even being alive?) - perhaps a "carbon tax" on breathing (or even living) is in order!

All-in-all, mother nature utilizes a system of fairly efficient 'homeostatic' mechanisms. The problem seems (IMO) to be, however, that her mechanisms work "so damn slow!" for those of us (denizens of earth) who have such limited life spans!

Also, note that Walberg uses 'climate change' then synonymously uses 'global warming'. This is a common error - global warming is ONE aspect of climate change . . . . so also is global cooling (remember the impending 'coming ice age' in the 1970's?).

Click to expand...

Bullshit.
"Climate change" is just the Frank Luntz recommendation for referring to global warming, its adoption a testament to the power of the rightwing media feeds to frame public discourse. His focus group research found it scared people less, because they didn't know what it really meant. He regarded that vagueness, that failure to inform clearly, that abetting of false reassurance and corporate-friendly deception, as an advantage for Republican candidates. He appears to have been correct.

Absolutely nobody in the media or the US public is talking about global cooling when they talk about climate change these days.

Walberg is correct - 'climate change has been happening since the beginning of time' (well, at least since the beginning of climate activity on earth).

Click to expand...

The current warming is unprecedented - it is ten times as fast as any other warming we know of. The reason is that it has a unique cause - the human boosting of CO2, faster than CO2 has ever been boosted as far as we know.

Which has many more effects, almost all of them damages, than the warming. Ocean acidification and oxygen partial pressure reduction, for example.

BTW: Average CO2 is currently only about 400 ppm in the atmosphere . . . . . not really so high (though global warming fanatics might disagree). CO2 has been higher in the geologic past as well as lower.

Click to expand...

CO2 is still rising - it went from 280 to over 400 in about a century, and its rise is not slowing. That is the problem - not the level, but the boost. If it had averaged 400 for the past ten thousand years there would be no problem - we would be fine. But going from 300 to 500 in a couple of centuries is capable of destroying industrial civilization.

All-in-all, mother nature utilizes a system of fairly efficient 'homeostatic' mechanisms. The problem seems (IMO) to be, however, that her mechanisms work "so damn slow!" for those of us (denizens of earth) who have such limited life spans!

Click to expand...

Yep.
So we can take comfort in the likelihood that - as after the asteroid killed all the dinosaurs except the flying ones - life will go on. In geological time, the place will probably (barring the clathrate bomb setting off a Venusian runaway) recover from the damage. Even from the worst possibilities. New species will evolve to fill in for the lost, that kind of thing. If that makes you feel better.

It must be the special bible that the right wing uses,probably the same one that says it's perfectly acceptable to "grab her by the pussy", "body slam a reporter", and "take away a woman's bodily autonomy".

Given enough time, the Sun will burn its hydrogen stores and grow into a red giant, engulfing the inner planets.

Given enough time, the Milky Way and the Andromeda galaxies will pass through one another, with massive tidal forces ripping solar systems apart on a scale of destruction the likes of which our minds can barely even comprehend.

The difference being, those are timescales measured in millions of years.

If climate change keeps going at its current rate, we could be seeing massive environmental damage within a generation or two... and rend the planet basically hostile to human life within a few hundred years.

Yes, ultimately Earth will perish - that is a foregone conclusion. Climate Change is a much, much sooner issue though... and I'd like my grandchildren to have a happy, healthy, green place to live, rather than being stuck in an underground Vault...

For years I've been hearing people say that we don't need to worry about the environment because Jesus is going to come back and make everything OK again. In fact, it has to go down the tubes in order for Revelations to come true.

Click to expand...

Even for believers this quote from the Bible would seem to make that that a dangerous position to take:

Revelation 11:18 “The nations raged, but your wrath came, and the time for the dead to be judged, and for rewarding your servants, the prophets and saints, and those who fear your name, both small and great, and for destroying the destroyers of the earth.”

I would consider someone who just stood by and did nothing just as culpable as those who were the active "destroyers of the Earth". In other words, these people who think that they are helping to usher in the "end times"by letting things fall apart could just find themselves on the wrong side of the Judgement.